In article <Pine.LNX.4.62.0503170027390.2558@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:36:35 +0100 (CET)), Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx> says:
> I considered also rewriting the
> if (fl)
> fl_free(fl);
> bit as simply fl_free(fl) as well, but that if() potentially saves two
> calls to kfree() inside fl_free as well as the call to fl_free itself, so
> I guess that's worth the if().
I don't mind calling kfree twice itself (because that function is not
so performance critical), but fl_free(NULL) is out because
if fl is NULL, kfree(fl->opt) is out.
So, what do you think of checking fl inside fl_free like this?
We can even make fl_free inline and check as following:
if (fl) {
kfree(fl->opt);
kfree(fl);
}
Based on patch from Jesper Juhl <juhl-lkml@xxxxxx>.
David?
Signed-off-by: Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
===== net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c 1.18 vs edited =====
--- 1.18/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c 2005-01-14 13:41:06 +09:00
+++ edited/net/ipv6/ip6_flowlabel.c 2005-03-17 11:23:32 +09:00
@@ -87,7 +87,7 @@
static void fl_free(struct ip6_flowlabel *fl)
{
- if (fl->opt)
+ if (fl)
kfree(fl->opt);
kfree(fl);
}
@@ -351,8 +351,7 @@
return fl;
done:
- if (fl)
- fl_free(fl);
+ fl_free(fl);
*err_p = err;
return NULL;
}
@@ -551,10 +550,8 @@
}
done:
- if (fl)
- fl_free(fl);
- if (sfl1)
- kfree(sfl1);
+ fl_free(fl);
+ kfree(sfl1);
return err;
}
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
